Television

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Police can stop vehicle on anonymous tip

In a 5-4 ruling in 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed police to initiate traffic stops based solely
on anonymous tips. The Navarette v. California decision was so dangerous that Justice Antonin Scalia called it “a freedom-destroying cocktail.”

On August 23, 2008, Pravdo Navarette was stopped by
a California Highway Patrol. No police officer ever witnessed
Navarette driving in a way that would have indicated that he was impaired
behind the wheel of his truck. Instead, entire basis for the stop was an
anonymous phone call to police alleging that Navarette had driven
dangerously. The caller identified the make, model and license plate
number of the truck. Fifteen minutes later, a highway patrolman proceeded to
follow Navarette for five minutes before finally pulling him over.

Once officers had Navarette on the side of the road,
they observed that he was not intoxicated. However, officers began
fishing for reasons to search the vehicle. One officer reported smelling
the odor of marijuana. Police proceeded to search his truck, found a
bundle of cannabis, and then arrested both men in the vehicle.

Navarette’s legal team argued that “the initial stop
was unconstitutional because police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop
his truck.” The also argued that police did not have reasonable
suspicion to pull him over because they had not determined the identity or
credibility of the caller.

On April 22, 2014, the court issued its 5-4
ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the majority opinion upholding
the initial stop based on the anonymous tipster’s observations. The U.S.
Supreme Court found that the Fourth Amendment rights of the two men had not
been violated, essentially because the anonymous caller was considered an
eyewitness; her tip was all that police needed to stop the motorists and
investigate them.

About Matt

An analysis of crime and punishment from the perspective of a former prosecutor and current criminal justice practitioner.
The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the opinions or postions of any county, state or federal agency.